Uddin v Minister for Immigration

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

UDDIN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2005] FMCA 841
MIGRATION – Visa – student visa.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.137J
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth), s.20
Applicant: MOHAMMAD AHSAN UDDIN
Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
File Number: SYG 1313 of 2004
Judgment of: Scarlett FM
Hearing date: 3 June 2005
Date of Last Submission: 3 June 2005
Delivered at: Sydney
Delivered on: 7 June 2005

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr McNally
Solicitors for the Applicant: Parish Patience Immigration Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Kennett
Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

DECLARATIONS

  1. That the Applicant’s student visa was not cancelled by operation of law under section 137J of the Migration Act 1958.

  2. That the Applicant was not an unlawful non-citizen at any stage.

ORDERS

  1. That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the purported automatic cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on 6 March 2005.

  2. That a writ of certiorari is to issue removing the purported decision of the delegate of the Respondent on 6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa into this Court to be quashed.

  3. That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the decision of


    6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa.

  4. That a writ of mandamus is to issue directing that Respondent to reconsider and redetermine the Applicant’s application for a subclass 497 visa according to law.

  5. That the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this application, fixed in the sum of $7500.00 professional costs and $1,076.00 disbursements, a total of $8,576.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG 1313 of 2005

MOHAMMAD AHSAN UDDIN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

  1. This is an application for review of an automatic cancellation of the applicant's student visa on 6 March 2005 by the operation of s.137J of the Migration Act1958 and the subsequent decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to reject the applicant's application for a subclass 497 visa.

  2. The applicant claims that his student visa was not lawfully cancelled by the operation of s.137J and therefore his application for a subclass 497 visa was validly made.

  3. The applicant seeks the following declarations and orders:

    1)a declaration that his student visa was not cancelled by operation of law under s.137J (2) of the Act;

    2)a declaration that he was not an unlawful non-citizen at any stage as a result of the purported automatic cancellation;

    3)the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent Minister and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the purported automatic cancellation of 6 March 2005;

    4)a writ of certiorari removing the purported rejection decision…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Uddin v Minister for Immigration and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2005] FMCA 841
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Uddin v Minister for Immigration, the Federal Court was asked to determine the validity of certain decisions made by the Minister for Immigration regarding the Applicant's visa status. The Applicant, who had previously held a student visa, sought to have the visa reinstated and to prevent its cancellation on the basis of administrative errors. The Minister, on the other hand, argued that the visa cancellation was lawful and that the Applicant's attempts to remain in Australia were unlawful.

The court was tasked with resolving several critical legal issues, including whether the Applicant's visa had been lawfully cancelled under section 137J of the Migration Act 1958, whether the Applicant had become an unlawful non-citizen, and whether the Minister's decisions in relation to the visa were made in accordance with the law. A further issue was the appropriate remedy for the Applicant, given the alleged unlawful actions by the Minister.

The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel the Applicant's visa was flawed due to procedural errors, including a failure to consider all relevant information and a lack of procedural fairness. The court held that the visa was not lawfully cancelled and that the Applicant had not been an unlawful non-citizen. Consequently, the court issued several writs, including prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus, to rectify the Minister's actions and to compel a reconsideration of the Applicant's visa application. The court also ordered the Minister to pay the Applicant's legal costs.

The Federal Court's final orders included declarations that the Applicant's visa was not lawfully cancelled, that the Applicant was not an unlawful non-citizen, and that the Minister was to refrain from acting on certain decisions. Additionally, the court ordered the issuance of various writs, including prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus, to ensure the Minister's compliance with the court's directions. The Minister was also ordered to pay the Applicant's legal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

DECLARATIONS

1.

That the Applicant’s student visa was not cancelled by operation of law under section 137J of the Migration Act 1958.

2.

That the Applicant was not an unlawful non-citizen at any stage.

ORDERS

3.

That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the purported automatic cancellation of the Applicant’s visa on 6 March 2005.

4.

That a writ of certiorari is to issue removing the purported decision of the delegate of the Respondent on 6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa into this Court to be quashed.

5.

That a writ of prohibition is to issue restraining the Respondent and her servants or agents from acting upon or giving effect to the decision of

6 April 2005 rejecting the Applicant’s application for a visa.

6.

That a writ of mandamus is to issue directing that Respondent to reconsider and redetermine the Applicant’s application for a subclass 497 visa according to law.

7.

That the Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs of this application, fixed in the sum of $7500.00 professional costs and $1,076.00 disbursements, a total of $8,576.00.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.